Alessandro Selli: ... > And > what I don't like of Karl Aspo's idea is that it takes any instrument of > policy checking and enforcing out of the monitor, which ends up not > being able to monitor anything, it becomes just a shell: fire and forget.
I honestly do not understand what I have written which gives you that idé. > I was also been ironic on Aspo, as many times he can only counter > another person's ideas asking "What if <something> cannot be trusted?", > as if this constitutes a valid argument against being able to set > policies for the monitor to enforce on the daemons it runs. If I can get a value from the kernel instead of from the process, I'd take the kernel value. Why do a process have to query the kernel to get a value and then sending it to a monitor over a communication link; why don't the monitor query the kernel itself, saving one step. > In this > case, asking "why should a program/daemon care if it has a monitor or > not ?" is moot, because that the daemon is aware or not that it was > launched by a monitor and if so by what monitor, does not change > anything about the monitor's functions and duties. The daemon doesn't > care if it's run by a monitor? The monitor is still there, and it does > care about the program. It would help my understanding if you simply answered my question. > A driver does not care if the traffic light is > red or green? The street police does. This is not as a suitable metaphor as you think it is. Regards, /Karl Hammar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Aspö Data Lilla Aspö 148 S-742 94 Östhammar Sweden +46 173 140 57 _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
